[laughinghan]

> But the shackles have come off. Where are all of these dramatic scientific findings that were suppressed?

The very article you're responding to mentions 3 specific examples of politically sensitive research that were affected by the policy, including the article's featured example about salmon.

> The single example constantly floated is about a guy who got called by a reporter about a paper he released about slime mold.

Of the 4 examples mentioned in the original article (3 specific examples, 1 shark scientist mentioned in passing), none of them are this "constantly floated" example, it isn't even mentioned in passing. Nor is it mentioned in either of the articles that my sibling comment linked to.

This is a bizarre response.

[osweiller]

The very article you're responding to mentions 3 specific examples of politically sensitive research

But all three demonstrate nothing being suppressed. It points to two people who claim to have left their jobs (moved elsewhere/retired) because of these restrictions (although unburdened they apparently had no big reveal, or even an anecdote about anything being suppressed. But polar bears or something -- the casual allusion being entirely manipulative and intentional), and a salmon researcher who released all of their science, including publication in Science, but couldn't give soundbites as an official representative of the government of Canada. Exactly as I stated, this is a union/workplace issue, and people having grievances about workplace policies, with shockingly little to say about how it actually impacted science.

including its featured example about salmon.

That was the beginning (it was literally the first example of communications policies interfering in someone's feeling of being a freelancer). The salmon industry was already sensitive, and with great fanfare the PR circus began for a paper in Science. The government was sensitive about the misrepresentation of science, not about the science. Again, the paper was published. The science was documented. The same person was presenting at a Salmon inquiry. But they couldn't provide soundbites without it being considered and controlled.

EDIT: Two hours in, and for the many, many down arrows I've gotten by people showing how strongly they feel about this, it's notable that the combined examples of suppressed science catalogued thus far: ZERO.

[guelo]

It's sad to me that there are actual voters out there that think a democratic government should be carefully PR managed like a secretive corporation. Personally I'd rather hear from the scientists that my tax dollars pay for then from a media-trained PR flak that I wish my tax dollars did not pay for.

[tbrownaw]

If I'm hearing via reporters, I'd rather hear from someone who knows how to avoid being misquoted / misunderstood by those reporters.

[alephnil]

The point of having PR-people in this case was not to ensure that the science was communicated in a clear way. It was rather to make sure that scientific findings that conflicted with government policies was never communicated to the press at all.

[chris_wot]

I'd rather the reporter heard it from someone who truly understood the science.

[evgen]

You seem to rather delusionally believe that a modern reporter would know the difference.

[chris_wot]

I'm not following. The difference between what?

[tensor]

Is preventing the media from talking to researchers repressing science? I'd say yes, even if papers are available to read. You've been provided plenty of evidence of this happening.

Some more cited here: http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/when-science-goes-silent/

People are down voting you because they disagree with you that the government should deny access to publicly funded scientists.

[chris_wot]

> The government was sensitive about the misrepresentation of science, not about the science.

What, it was worried that the scientist would misrepresent their own research? That's ridiculous!

In a scientific paper, a theory is hypothesised, an experiment designed, data and observations conducted and a conclusion is formed. That conclusion, based on the observations and data collected by the scientist, is analysis.

What you are saying is that the scientist will misrepresent their own conclusions.

Let's put that another way: you are saying that the scientist will misrepresent science by contradicting their own conclusions.

Another way of putting it, just to be clear: the scientist will publish their conclusions in a paper, then tell the media the exact opposite of their conclusions. Either by mistake or because they are lying.

You seem to be surprised by the incredulity your post is generating. There's why!

[caseysoftware]

To suggest that scientists would never misrepresent their work because "science!" is naive at best.

Scientists are human. They are not above human motivations - both good and bad - related to their work, their stature, and their jobs. Funding can be based on certain results. Getting published can be based on certain results.

This is why making experiments and studies that are reproducible is so important.

[chris_wot]

Reproducibility is important, but not to check that what a scientist says about their own work is accurate. To verify the accuracy of what a scientist says about their own work you merely have to read their work.

That said, however, I am actually saying that it's unlikely that a scientist would misrepresent their own published findings. Perhaps it may occur - but if that happened then the government of the day could discipline the scientist who misrepresented their work. They would have to prove it.

What I find more naive is that a media relations person, employed by the government to portray them in the best light, would not misrepresent the work of the scientist.

Who would you want the reporter to speak to: the person employed to protect the reputation of the government of the day, or the scientist who did the actual work?

[snowwrestler]

Let's say you're worried that a scientist might misrepresent their work. So you force them to communicate through a PR staff person. Now you have 2 people who might misrepresent the work.

[bobcostas55]

>What, it was worried that the scientist would misrepresent their own research? That's ridiculous!

Why? Just look at that study about sexism on github that came out a couple of months ago, the authors were lying through their teeth. They (correctly) surmised that reporters wouldn't bother looking at the actual results, and so managed to generate tons of media coverage.

[Swizec]

No, the worry is that reporters will misrepresent what they hear from the scientist.

Cue relevant xkcd: https://xkcd.com/882/

[snowwrestler]

Is it the government's job to prevent mis-reporting of science?

If so, why not just manage the reporters directly? Every science news story could be reviewed by a central government office prior to publication, to make sure it's accurate. Of course, the reviews would be done by political appointees and their staff, not the scientists themselves since they have a conflict of interest, it being their research and all.

This would never fly, of course. Canada has at least some semblance of freedom of the press. But for some reason the exact same system, applied to the scientists themselves, was OK?

[dragonwriter]

> Is it the government's job to prevent mis-reporting of science?

I would say it is certainly part of the government's job to see to it that the public (including the media, who are simply members of the public who happen to exercise the freedom of the press) receives, when receiving information directly from the government, accurate information about things that the government does, including science.

> If so, why not just manage the reporters directly?

Because while it is the government's obligation to insure that the information it (through its officers and employees) provides to the public (including the media) is accurate and presented appropriately considering the direct audience, it has a different role with regard to information shared about government by members of the public, including the media.

[snowwrestler]

I agree that the government should try to provide accurate information. Who better to do that than the scientist who actually conducted the research? That's what made this muzzle rule so egregious: it so obviously broke the process that would provide the most accurate information.

[chris_wot]

Which assumes scientists are utterly incapable of communicating with anyone other than other scientists.

[Swizec]

I think it instead assumes that journalists will do anything to sell more papers. Regardless of what the scientists actually say.

[chris_wot]

So a media officer won't do any good then.